2018 NFL Thread - The Dynasty

[TAC]

So I must say, I hardly ever watch the Pro Bowl, but since there is absolutely nothing on today, I'm tuning in.

I'm pleasantly surprised I'm enjoying this. I love the amount of joy these players seem to be having, and the respect being paid to each other. I also love that the QB's are mike'd up so you can hear the call. That's a lot better than a glowing fucking puck or a skating trail.

I mention the puck, because I never miss an NHL all star game, but this year's game and festivities seemed totally lame. Honestly, no one seemed happy to be there except Marc Andre Fluery, who seems happy to be anywhere.

[Dublagent66]

Imagine a call missed like that in one of the biggest sporting events in the world in front of an audience that big?? The NFL would lose so many fans over that. 

It is going to take a LOT for enough fans to turn away from the NFL to make a significant difference. It isn't impossible, but it will take a lot more than a couple blown calls. People love football, and the NFL is still the best game in town. And they know it.

All the more reason for the refs to get their shit together and the NFL to make rule changes for reviewing missed calls of that nature.

[pg1067]

Well, not to be pedantic, but as my first year crim-law professional drilled into us, there is no cause of action for "assault and battery."  There are typically in any given state several types of assault and several types of battery.  But there is no such thing as "assault and battery."<sup>1., 2. 

1.</sup> And, yes, the title of that article within title 16, chapter 5 of the Georgia Codes is "assault and battery," but that is an article, and is not a cause of action.

^2. Yeah, I probably could have gone without posting this at all, but I just came from the "things I find mildly irritating thread," so...

There is "Robbery, Assault, and Battery", though.  Tony Banks said so.    .

    Although are you sure it wasn't Phil, since both are credited for the song?


On the topic of football, I don't know if it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but the whole controversy with the officiating is a bit ironic since, before the game, there was a bunch of noisy Rams fans (including one of the co-hosts of a local sports talk radio show) claiming that the referee who worked the game, Bill Vinovich, was biased against the Rams.  They even went so far as to launch a "petition" to have the scheduled crews for the two games switched at the last minute.  They even cited the fact that Walt Coleman, the referee who correctly applied the "tuck rule" in the 1/19/02 Raiders v. Patriots game, never worked another Raiders game.

[dparrott]

Ugh.  Tuck rule.  Now I wanna punch something.  Makes me hate the Pats even more.

[King Postwhore]

Ugh.  Tuck rule.  Now I wanna punch something.  Makes me hate the Pats even more.

See I never got this.  It's a bad rule.  We all can agree but it was a rule.  Hate the league and their dumb rules, not the team for it.  Funny, the Pats lost a game on the tuck rule that season as well.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Ugh.  Tuck rule.  Now I wanna punch something.  Makes me hate the Pats even more.

See I never got this.  It's a bad rule.  We all can agree but it was a rule.  Hate the league and their dumb rules, not the team for it.  Funny, the Pats lost a game on the tuck rule that season as well.

I don't think your last sentence is any consolation if you consider which game New England lost versus which game Oakland lost.

[King Postwhore]

Everybody looks at that game because of the magnitude but in 2001 but the rule was in since 1999.  pat's lost to the Jets that year because of it.  That's all I'm pointing out.


There are so many other reasons to hate the Pats.

[Stadler]

The DH rule in baseball BLOWS.   If you take the field, you should swing a bat.

Oh, and we should hate the Yankees for every game they ever won because of their DH. 

[pg1067]

Ugh.  Tuck rule.  Now I wanna punch something.  Makes me hate the Pats even more.

What Stadler said.

Hating a team because it was the beneficiary of a rule you don't like -- but which was correctly applied -- makes no sense.


On another subject, over the last few days, the NFL ran 30 minute highlight films for each Super Bowl.  I watched a bunch of them, including most of the first 12 games.  Two things really stood out:  (1) brutal hits; and (2) tackling technique that actually involved wrapping up the ball carrier and not just trying to hit him in the hopes that he goes down.  Good to hear John Facenda's voice again.

[Stadler]

Ugh.  Tuck rule.  Now I wanna punch something.  Makes me hate the Pats even more.

What Stadler said.

Hating a team because it was the beneficiary of a rule you don't like -- but which was correctly applied -- makes no sense.


On another subject, over the last few days, the NFL ran 30 minute highlight films for each Super Bowl.  I watched a bunch of them, including most of the first 12 games.  Two things really stood out:  (1) brutal hits; and (2) tackling technique that actually involved wrapping up the ball carrier and not just trying to hit him in the hopes that he goes down.  Good to hear John Facenda's voice again.

Not shitting you one bit, but it's the voice I hear in my head when I'm watching old football films.   As a kid I must've watched film with his voice over 1,000's of times.   It's a part of the fabric at this point.

[pg1067]

Ugh.  Tuck rule.  Now I wanna punch something.  Makes me hate the Pats even more.

What Stadler said.

Hating a team because it was the beneficiary of a rule you don't like -- but which was correctly applied -- makes no sense.


On another subject, over the last few days, the NFL ran 30 minute highlight films for each Super Bowl.  I watched a bunch of them, including most of the first 12 games.  Two things really stood out:  (1) brutal hits; and (2) tackling technique that actually involved wrapping up the ball carrier and not just trying to hit him in the hopes that he goes down.  Good to hear John Facenda's voice again.

Not shitting you one bit, but it's the voice I hear in my head when I'm watching old football films.   As a kid I must've watched film with his voice over 1,000's of times.   It's a part of the fabric at this point.

Given that we're pretty close to the same age, I imagine our experiences in this regard are pretty similar.  I remember sitting around on Saturdays during football season and watching a show that was essentially 5 minutes worth of highlights from each of the 14 games from the previous weekend.  They were narrated by John Facenda and had all of that good NFL music in the background.  This would have been somewhere in the 1977-83 time frame (Facenda died shortly after the start of the 1984 NFL season).  It still seems a little odd to watch NFL highlight packages without the music or Facenda's voice.

[Stadler]

Ugh.  Tuck rule.  Now I wanna punch something.  Makes me hate the Pats even more.

What Stadler said.

Hating a team because it was the beneficiary of a rule you don't like -- but which was correctly applied -- makes no sense.


On another subject, over the last few days, the NFL ran 30 minute highlight films for each Super Bowl.  I watched a bunch of them, including most of the first 12 games.  Two things really stood out:  (1) brutal hits; and (2) tackling technique that actually involved wrapping up the ball carrier and not just trying to hit him in the hopes that he goes down.  Good to hear John Facenda's voice again.

Not shitting you one bit, but it's the voice I hear in my head when I'm watching old football films.   As a kid I must've watched film with his voice over 1,000's of times.   It's a part of the fabric at this point.

Given that we're pretty close to the same age, I imagine our experiences in this regard are pretty similar.  I remember sitting around on Saturdays during football season and watching a show that was essentially 5 minutes worth of highlights from each of the 14 games from the previous weekend.  They were narrated by John Facenda and had all of that good NFL music in the background.  This would have been somewhere in the 1977-83 time frame (Facenda died shortly after the start of the 1984 NFL season).  It still seems a little odd to watch NFL highlight packages without the music or Facenda's voice.

I can't remember the name of that show, but that's exactly right.    Then there was the "Football Follies".

I don't want to overstate it too much, but those highlight packages inform my love of football to this day.  I'm a big fan of those '70's Raiders teams, and that style of hard-nosed, "grass clump in the facemask" football.   Guys shown in slow motion with "the voice of God" over the shot, walking all bloody and dirty, with strips of athletic tape hanging from their hands.   In all the years watching those shows, there was an elegance and a reverence in them.  Not one shot of "dapping" or any of the extraneous billshot you see on the field today.   My opinion only.

[pg1067]

Ugh.  Tuck rule.  Now I wanna punch something.  Makes me hate the Pats even more.

What Stadler said.

Hating a team because it was the beneficiary of a rule you don't like -- but which was correctly applied -- makes no sense.


On another subject, over the last few days, the NFL ran 30 minute highlight films for each Super Bowl.  I watched a bunch of them, including most of the first 12 games.  Two things really stood out:  (1) brutal hits; and (2) tackling technique that actually involved wrapping up the ball carrier and not just trying to hit him in the hopes that he goes down.  Good to hear John Facenda's voice again.

Not shitting you one bit, but it's the voice I hear in my head when I'm watching old football films.   As a kid I must've watched film with his voice over 1,000's of times.   It's a part of the fabric at this point.

Given that we're pretty close to the same age, I imagine our experiences in this regard are pretty similar.  I remember sitting around on Saturdays during football season and watching a show that was essentially 5 minutes worth of highlights from each of the 14 games from the previous weekend.  They were narrated by John Facenda and had all of that good NFL music in the background.  This would have been somewhere in the 1977-83 time frame (Facenda died shortly after the start of the 1984 NFL season).  It still seems a little odd to watch NFL highlight packages without the music or Facenda's voice.

I can't remember the name of that show, but that's exactly right.    Then there was the "Football Follies".

I don't want to overstate it too much, but those highlight packages inform my love of football to this day.  I'm a big fan of those '70's Raiders teams, and that style of hard-nosed, "grass clump in the facemask" football.   Guys shown in slow motion with "the voice of God" over the shot, walking all bloody and dirty, with strips of athletic tape hanging from their hands.   In all the years watching those shows, there was an elegance and a reverence in them.  Not one shot of "dapping" or any of the extraneous billshot you see on the field today.   My opinion only.

Mine as well.

[TAC]

I loved those Raider teams. Dave Casper is still my all time favorite player.

[Cool Chris]

Good to hear John Facenda's voice again.

Awesome! I never knew this guy's name, but knew exactly who you were talking about, and confirmed via YouTube. His narration is like ASMR for football fans.

[pg1067]

I loved those Raider teams. Dave Casper is still my all time favorite player.

The funny thing is that I can name more players from the Raiders, Steelers, Vikings and Cowboys of that era than I can from the 2018 Denver Broncos.

Good to hear John Facenda's voice again.

Awesome! I never knew this guy's name, but knew exactly who you were talking about, and confirmed via YouTube. His narration is like ASMR for football fans.

ASMR??

[rab7]

ASMR??

It's a tingly response you get when something whispers in your ear in a particular way

[TAC]

I loved those Raider teams. Dave Casper is still my all time favorite player.

The funny thing is that I can name more players from the Raiders, Steelers, Vikings and Cowboys of that era than I can from the 2018 Denver Broncos.

I was a huge football fan in the late 70's early 80's. YouTube has a lot of those games in full.

[Cool Chris]

ASMR??

It's a tingly response you get when something whispers in your ear in a particular way

Basically but it doesn't have to be a whisper. It can be any sound. There is a whole ASMR community on YT. Yes there are some I listen to regularly, at night when I can't unwind enough to fall asleep.

[TAC]

What does ASMR stand for, was I think the question?

Auditory sensitivity...

[Dublagent66]

Most.  Unanticipated.  Super Bowl.  Ever.   

[kaos2900]

So, who does everyone have winning? I don't see Brady losing back-to-back super bowls and with the Rams terrible secondary I think the Patriots win 35-24.

[KevShmev]

Most.  Unanticipated.  Super Bowl.  Ever.   

Agreed.  Almost everyone outside of Boston is sick of the Patriots, and the NFCCG controversy has many feeling that the Rams don't deserve to be there.  I said early last week that this was the worst possible match-up considering the final four teams and I still think it. Imagine the excitement Saints/Chiefs would have created, but instead we get this snorefest.

[King Postwhore]

I understand that feeling outside of N.E.


But when have the Pats been in an unexciting SB?  Every damn one in the Brady era has come down to the last play.  I'd like an easy game for once.


It never happens.

[bosk1]

Chiefs/Rams would have been the worst matchup ever.  With two villains in the SB, there is nobody to root for.  Of all the potential matchups of all 32 teams, you literally could not script a worse matchup than that.

[KevShmev]

I understand that feeling outside of N.E.


But when have the Pats been in an unexciting SB?  Every damn one in the Brady era has come down to the last play.  I'd like an easy game for once.


It never happens.

Quality of the game is not the same as the anticipation.  Few were excited by Pats/Patriots back in '03, but that turned out to be a wildly entertaining game...well, a wildly entertaining 4th quarter.   On the flip side, Saints/Colts was an exciting match-up in '09, but the game turned out to be kinda forgettable.  The reasons I stated in my prior post are why this game is not getting people excited.

[El Barto]

Most.  Unanticipated.  Super Bowl.  Ever.   

Agreed.  Almost everyone outside of Boston is sick of the Patriots, and the NFCCG controversy has many feeling that the Rams don't deserve to be there.  I said early last week that this was the worst possible match-up considering the final four teams and I still think it. Imagine the excitement Saints/Chiefs would have created, but instead we get this snorefest.

From a human interest standpoint you're correct, for the reasons you give. WWE fans won't like it. From a football standpoint I think it's likely to provide the best game we could have gotten. No, it won't be the 54-51 game we could have gotten from KC/NO. I'm sure that's what super bowl watchers would have wanted (with every quarter ending in two different scores). But then some of us appreciate a well fought, well played 20-17 game.


edit: Your ninja clarifies what you're saying, which is pretty much in line with what I just wrote.

[King Postwhore]

3


It never happens.

Quality of the game is not the same as the anticipation.  Few were excited by Pats/Patriots back in '03, but that turned out to be a wildly entertaining game...well, a wildly entertaining 4th quarter.   On the flip side, Saints/Colts was an exciting match-up in '09, but the game turned out to be kinda forgettable.  The reasons I stated in my prior post are why this game is not getting people excited.

I completely understand.  Hell, I've done that before.  Just checking in to see the score but never really watched the game.

[pg1067]

Chiefs/Rams would have been the worst matchup ever.  With two villains in the SB, there is nobody to root for.  Of all the potential matchups of all 32 teams, you literally could not script a worse matchup than that.

I would have totally enjoyed a Chiefs v. Rams game.  Offense aplenty!

You really think that Chiefs v. Rams would be worse than Cardinals v. Titans?

[rab7]

To the person who asked above, "Autonomous sensory meridian response".

On the flip side, Saints/Colts was an exciting match-up in '09, but the game turned out to be kinda forgettable.  The reasons I stated in my prior post are why this game is not getting people excited.

Did we watch the same game? Colts shooting out to a 10-0 lead? Surprise onside kick to start the 2nd half? An acrobatic 2-pt conversion mid-air barrel roll by Lance Moore? Tracy Porter with a pick-6 to end any hope of a Colts comeback? As a Texans fan, I knew Peyton getting the ball with 4 minutes left down less than a TD was a guaranteed win for the Colts, so seeing that Porter pick-6 was one of the most exciting SB moments for me.

How could you think any of the above was forgettable?

[El Barto]

Nicely done.



I suppose the league wouldn't let him wear it for the game.

[Anxiety35]

I'll watch but I'm not as interested as I would like to be. No dislike for either team. I pick the Patriots to win due to experience in the big game and the Rams secondary being suspect. However, the Rams defensive front may cause problems for Brady. We shall see.

Patriots 31
Rams 21

As a big UGA college football fan, either Michel or Gurley will have a SB ring. Good for them! Go Dawgs!

[King Postwhore]

Nicely done.



I suppose the league wouldn't let him wear it for the game.

Nice.  Tip of the cap to his old man.

[Cool Chris]

Few were excited by Pats/Patriots back in '03,

I bet King would wet himself over the thought of an all-Patriots SB.

[pg1067]

On the flip side, Saints/Colts was an exciting match-up in '09, but the game turned out to be kinda forgettable.  The reasons I stated in my prior post are why this game is not getting people excited.

Did we watch the same game? Colts shooting out to a 10-0 lead? Surprise onside kick to start the 2nd half? An acrobatic 2-pt conversion mid-air barrel roll by Lance Moore? Tracy Porter with a pick-6 to end any hope of a Colts comeback? As a Texans fan, I knew Peyton getting the ball with 4 minutes left down less than a TD was a guaranteed win for the Colts, so seeing that Porter pick-6 was one of the most exciting SB moments for me.

How could you think any of the above was forgettable?

Concur.  In terms of enjoyment factor, we've had a pretty great run going back to the Broncos' win in SB32 that ended the long string of NFC dominance.  I would rate the 10 most recent Super Bowls thusly:

44 (Saints 31 - Colts 17):  "rab7" summarized it pretty well.  Not only were the Colts driving for a game-tying touchdown with less than 4:00 left in the 4th quarter, the Colts were in Saints' territory, and Porter caught the ball at the Saints' 26 yard line.  Had that pass been completed, the entire complexion of the game would have changed.  4.5/5 stars.

45 (Packers 31 - Steelers 25):  I honestly don't remember this game very well and didn't have much preference who won.  Just looking at the box score, the Packers went up 14-0 in the first quarter, with the Steelers cutting the gap to 21-10 by halftime.  By the middle of the 4th quarter, the Steelers had closed to 28-25, but the Packers got a field goal, and the Steelers' two minute drive failed pretty miserably.  3.5/5 stars.

46 (Giants 21 - Patriots 17):  Like the game four years earlier, while this was a close game throughout (the Giants' 9-0 lead after a late 1st quarter touchdown was the biggest lead of the game), I thought this was a pretty dull game until the final, game winning drive.  3/5 stars.

47 (Ravens 34 - 49ers 31):  In terms of my personal enjoyment, this one is pretty similar to SB45, except that I actively disliked both teams.  Although it was a close final score, it was a tale of two halves, which makes the closeness less enjoyable.  2.5/5 stars.

48 (Seahawks [a shitload] - Broncos [piss all]):  The less said about this abomination the better.  0/5 stars.

49 (Patriots 28 - Seahawks 24):  I despised the 2013-15 Seahawks, and my wife is a Boston sports fan, so there's my perspective.  I literally lept to my feet on the Butler interception.  The ending of this game was great, but it was dud for about the first quarter and a half.  Because of my personal perspective, the criticism of the decision to pass on that play doesn't enter into my thinking.  All in all, the ending and the overall closeness of the game make this a good one.  4/5 stars.

50 (Broncos 24 - Pathers 10):  Hard for me to be objective about this one.  Carolina never led, and the Broncos pretty much dominated, and the result was never really in doubt.  Personally, it's a 5/5; objectively, probably 2.5 or 3.

51 (Patriots 34 - Falcons 28):  See above re SB47.  This game was a dud for three quarters, and then exciting AF for the rest of the game.  That it took over a half century to get an overtime Super Bowl is pretty amazing.  4/5 stars.

52 (Eagles 41 - Patriots 33):  Kind of a dud for about a quarter and a half, and then really enjoyable.  Notwithstanding being married to a Boston sports fan, I strongly lean toward underdogs, so I really enjoyed this one -- the second half in particular.  4/5 stars.


Regarding Wade Phillips, I caught a quick bit on the NFL Network where he referred fondly to "the old days" when you could wear stuff like that on the sideline that "didn't have a swoosh on it."  Doesn't Wade sit in the booth and, if so, why couldn't he wear it for the game (not that he'd necessarily want to in a climate controlled building)?